Posted on 06/13/2021 8:37:17 AM PDT by wrrock
This is straight up incredible work. It should be the essential guide on why to avoid the hell out of this thing.
(Excerpt) Read more at trialsitenews.com ...
bflr
Afraid is an inappropriate word in this circumstance.
Many freepers feel the risk outweighs any potential benefit. There have been lies, misinformation, emerging issue and an overall sense that this injection is imperfectly tested.
I saw that, after I pinged. ;-)
Platos's cave syndrome...you saw the same phenomena with Q-anon, and its no surprise some of the same players are involved in peddling vaccine "truth".
Mrs. JimRed and I are living proof; both over 70, each with underlying conditions and both survived COVID with only a slight loss of smell/taste as aftereffects (so far). She vaxxed, I will not.
people that fear covid got the shot...
people that don’t fear covid refuse to get the shot...
I don’t know what the attorneys can sue for when all the serum manufacturers have blanket immunity granted by the government.
(If it did, don’t you think Merck would want their own fair share of the billions of dollars being spent to prevent and treat COVID?)
The patent is expired, and there are generic versions.
not dumb, compromised
My mom and dad got the first Pfizer shot. Within a week she went from a healthy active person in her mid 80s going to the YMCA every night to an invalid who cannot make it from her room to the master bathroom a few steps away without assistance. It has now been many weeks and I am still not sure if she is going to make it. Every time we see her she seems to be a little worse.
My younger brother got the first Pfizer shot. He is in his mid 50s and has always been very active and healthy. He has been a captain for a major airline for many years. He now has an “inflamed” heart and is looking at mandatory retirement for medical reasons.
My younger sister had the Moderna shots. She has had a serious flare up with arthritis and other medical problems that caused her to not be able to drive.
I worked for years as one of the heads of a large Hazmat team. I have had ten times more vaccinations than most people on this forum with no complications. I would not touch these experimental vaccines with a ten foot pole. Many of my former coworkers and subordinates feel the same way. The more informed you are the more insecure you feel about the safety of these vaccines.
Some of us have never been opposed to vaccines but have family members and friends who have had serious adverse effects from the experimental vaccines.
Not the manufacturers, that's for sure. How about employers that require vaccinations to work? Hospitals that require it to see your spouse in the hospital? Universities that require to get a degree? Airlines? Cruise lines? Courthouses?
That’s racist, showing the black person getting more of the symptoms.
Yes, Invermectin has indeed been out for many years. That doesn’t change it’s current retail price, which is ~$100 for 20 whole 3 mg pills. So the point about Merck not being able to make “big bucks” is flawed - it’s MORE EXPENSIVE (given the dosing needed) than the vaccines are. So, as I said earlier..IF Invermectin did anything for COVID, you better bet Merck would be lining up to get their fair share of the billions being spent.
All that said, Merck themselves has said Invermectin DOES. NOT. WORK. for COVID. Here’s their exact language:
“Company scientists continue to carefully examine the findings of all available and emerging studies of Ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 for evidence of efficacy and safety. It is important to note that, to-date, our analysis has identified:
- No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies;
- No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and;
- A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.”
https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/
So, even the MANUFACTURER of the drug saying “IT DOES **NOTHING** FOR COVID” isn’t enough to convince you guys, eh? That’s OK..keep listening to the internet “Doctors” (who by the way are raking in huge $$s selling their fear porn seminars and vitamins) instead of the company that actually MAKES the drug being recommended by said “Doctors”. Sigh...
I’m sorry, but that’s not accurate.
CASE Fatality rate is 1.7 - 1.8% nationally. Higher in other countries.
Of course, for those who want to play games and use ASSUMED *INFECTION* Fatality rates, you can come to all sorts of unfounded (and inaccurate) conclusions.
And I suppose you can also pick whatever definitions you want for “young” vs “elderly”. I personally know of people far south of 70 (which is what many would start to consider “elderly”) that have died from COVID, including one 51 year old family friend. Was he “elderly”? If not..your assertion about “100% survival” unless one is “elderly” is not even remotely correct.
He doesn't go through the usual litany of anti-vax delirium (eg "autism!", "It's not a real vaccine", or even worse "The immunization theory is false"). I could go on, but you get the idea, but the point being is that it's easy to allow the more colorful anti-vax claims to affect one's perceptions when a rational observer reaches some of the same conclusions, but from a different, and factually supported, direction.
What Steve does here, which is not crazy, and in fact is a bombshell that should spark both a national outrage and serious investigation is to show that real, verifiable, and serious problems have been, and are being, concealed from the public by those in positions of trust. I won't throw in with him completely on his speculated motivations, but it's hard to ignore the facts that he presents.
To my mind, the core issue that he raises is this: The EUA recognizes a core ethical principle: a person receiving the vaccine must be able to give informed consent prior to accepting the shot.
We now know, dispositively, that at least one dangerous and important characteristic of the current mRNA vaccines was known by the NAID prior to delivery of the first doses, and was not publicly disclosed. I'm referring to the biodistibution data (ie, which tissues the lipid nanoparticles have been turning up in. They were supposed to stay at the injection site (typically the deltoid muscle), but do not.
Steve summarizes the point as "Biodistribution data shows massive accumulation in ovaries of the LNP (which instructs cells in ovaries to sprout toxic spike protein). ... We obtained (that information) via FOIA request."
That's a serious problem, and well outside of the usual smokey-back-rooom nature of the usual pro-vax/anti-vax invective that FR has devolved into of late.
And before I'm accused of being anti-vax, I'll state that I got the Moderna shot as soon as it was offered, suffered no ill effects, and based on the current state knowledge (including this article), and my own individual health situation and work requirements, would do so again. But at least now I'm at least basing that on informed consent, not solely on more of Fauci's lies.
I’d like to think you’re right, but the employer in the Houston hospital suit just got a federal judge to rule that they are within their rights to require the serum. I suspect a few more rulings like that will put an end to all legal challenges.
Perfect example of the shadow throwing shown in the Plato's cave allegory.
You're projecting your family's personal experience onto a larger group and topping it off with some "muh expertise" commentary.
In reality, the number of serious adverse reactions to the SARs-cov-2 vaccines is exceedingly small given the 100s of millions of doses administered... but you wouldn't know it by simply observing your version of the "truth".
“But that said, everyone that I know who has received it is fine. “
And exactly how many is that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.